Prevalence of ipsilateral “vulnerable carotid plaques with <50 % stenosis” on CT angiography in embolic stroke of undetermined source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carotid plaques may be an important etiology in ischemic stroke. We aimed to assess carotid plaque characteristics ipsilateral and contralateral to the ischemic stroke and assessed the prevalence of "vulnerable carotid plaques with <50% stenosis" based on different imaging-based definitions in patients with large vessel occlusion and source of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) on CT Angiography (CTA). METHODS: Data are from the ESCAPE-NA1 trial (Efficacy and safety of nerinetide for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke), a multicenter, randomized study that included anterior circulation large vessel occlusion patients undergoing thrombectomy. Various CTA features of plaque vulnerability were combined to define "vulnerable carotid plaques" in different ways. Within ESUS patients, prevalence of vulnerable plaques ipsilateral vs. contralateral to the intracranial occlusion was compared. RESULTS: We analyzed 132 patients whose ischemic stroke mechanism was determined to be ESUS. Plaques causing 30-50 % stenosis (as compared to no stenosis) and plaque surface irregularity were significantly more common in ipsilateral carotid arteries (37[28.0 %] vs. 18[13.6 %]; p < 0.001 and 102[77.3 %] vs. 78[59.1 %]; p = 0.002). The prevalence of ipsilateral "vulnerable carotid plaques" varied depending on imaging definition used for such plaques between 55 and 74 %, but irrespective of the definition used, the prevalence of "vulnerable carotid plaques" was consistently higher in ipsilateral carotid arteries compared to contralateral carotid arteries. CONCLUSIONS: In ESUS patients undergoing thrombectomy for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion, vulnerable carotid plaques are more prevalent ipsilateral to the intracranial occlusion. Irregular plaque surface, and a higher degree of stenosis were the most common vulnerable plaque features.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".